Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Apple

Fortnite Creator Epic Files European Union Complaint Against Apple (axios.com) 149

Posted by msmash from the breaking-news dept.
Epic Games is taking its legal battle against Apple global, filing an antitrust complaint in Europe against the iPhone maker. From a report: The move adds another layer to the protracted dispute and brings it to a jurisdiction that has historically been tougher on U.S. tech companies. Last September, Epic added its own in-app purchase mechanism to Fortnite, knowingly setting up a confrontation with Apple, which doesn't allow payment systems other than its own. Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store and Epic immediately filed suit. A similar chain of events took place with Google on the Android side, though in that case, Epic can continue to distribute Fortnite on its own outside the Google Play store, while no similar option exists for iOS. Apple also countersued Epic in October, claiming breach of contract.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fortnite Creator Epic Files European Union Complaint Against Apple More

Fortnite Creator Epic Files European Union Complaint Against Apple

Comments Filter:

  • How it will go. (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by LenKagetsu ( 6196102 )

    Apple "Is this the contract you agreed to?"
    Epic "Yes."
    Apple "And this is the part that says no circumventing our cut?"
    Epic "Yes."
    Apple "And you circumvented our cut?"
    Epic "Yes."
    Apple "And you're suing us for terminating you for breach of contract?"
    Epic "Yes."
    Apple "Are you fucking retarded?"
    Epic "Yes."

    • Re:How it will go. (Score:4, Informative)

      by jonbryce ( 703250 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @05:00AM (#61071288) Homepage

      It won't go that way. The EU doesn't allow you to rewrite the law using contracts.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        What law? It's not like Apple wrote that Epic employees have to give up their kidneys in case of breach of contract. I'm not a fan of the walled garden BS, but they don't have to allow this either. However, the percentage is too high.

        • Well, laws like fair competition and monopoly situation. That is at least likely what Epic is training to prove.

          • Actually Apple makes competition much more fair. A big company like Epic has to play by the same rules as a small developer.

            Also you really do not need to use Apples services. They make a ton of money without using Apple Devices anyways.

            • Actually Apple makes competition much more fair. A big company like Epic has to play by the same rules as a small developer.

              And the small company has to play by the same rules as the big guys, and the kicker is the rules absolutely favor the big guys.

              When Apple is taking 30% of your income, the government another 20%, patent payments 20% (yeah this happened to where I was working, patents are hell), and then another 40% your development costs, for a grand total of 110% percent, the only way to make a profit

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

          Would it sound absurd if Apple insisted all purchases from Amazon had to pay 30% to Apple? Apple would if they could.

          Would if sound absurd if every time you bought a game from GOG.com 30% of the price went to Microsoft? This is a pretty straight analogy with Apple.

          OTOH console makers get a cut on every game sold AFAIK, should that end too?

          • >OTOH console makers get a cut on every game sold AFAIK, should that end too?

            Yes. Or at least made reasonable. That is I could well see a service fee like thing both for the mobile platforms and consoles. That is the fees do not need to be the low as just normal credit card processing fees, but should not be monopolistic high.

            Thus say a total of 5% to cover the credit card processing and the hosting as similar would be fair in my mind. As the fat is there are costs to running the app stores and such.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Would it sound absurd if Apple insisted all purchases from Amazon had to pay 30% to Apple? Apple would if they could.

            Apple actually did that. They only started to relent last year as pressure mounted.

            https://www.macworld.com/artic... [macworld.com]

            You used to not be able to actually buy anything in the Amazon app for iOS because it would have required using Apple's payment system and giving them their cut. That changed last year when Apple introduced a program to allow some apps to do purchases outside their ecosystem, probably to try to stave off regulators and lawsuits.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by gnasher719 ( 869701 )

        It won't go that way. The EU doesn't allow you to rewrite the law using contracts.

        What law? The law that says subsidies of Chinese companies are free to breach any contract as they see fit?

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        And it's not even just about "Rewriting the law" either.

        Antitrust legislation exists specifically to curtail activities of corporations which are too successful, in the interest of the public good. We know that when corporations become too dominant in a market, customers suffer. And we [sometimes] choose to regulate them so that doesn't happen. People like to cry foul but they forget that corporations are just legal fictions. They are allegedly creations for the benefit of The People, and if The People are

        • This is what is ruining Slashdot.

          Moderation is and always has been broken.

          The trolls finally learned how to game the system well enough to win over those who want rational discourse, and the leadership of Slashdot is doing nothing to prevent it. Based on their inaction they either don't care, are wholly incompetent, or actively like it this way.

          I'm actually betting it's some of all of the above.

    • Re: How it will go. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by orlanz ( 882574 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @05:50AM (#61071390)

      I suspect more or less. I think the EU will find that consumers do benefit from Apple's contract and that alone will shutdown Epics arguments. Also, Apple has far less of a market share in the EU than the US, it's not a big monopoly there to worry the EU in terms of market manipulation.

      • The market share is most likely bigger in the EU than in the US.

        • I can tell you that in corporate US the iPhones make up 50-80% of the fleets. In the EU, it looks closer to 10-30%. Obviously I am ignoring the Apple only shops.

          General stats put the iPhone at 49% and 18%. The primary reasons for this is that iPhones are more expensive in the EU and there are a lot more Android options there. The US is almost a barren wasteland when it comes to Android devices compared to most of the world.

          • Well, but corporations should not really be relevant to determine market share, or would they?
            I would say, if apple sells 20% phones and all the others together 80%, that is the market share.

            The US is almost a barren wasteland when it comes to Android devices compared to most of the world. Interesting to know. What might eb the reasons, besides the silly Huweii ban?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        I think Epic can point to how they were ejected from both the Play Store and Apple store, and they are still able to deliver to Android users but not Apple.

        Arguments about it compromising the experience can be countered by how third-party app distribution is only possible after informed consent about the risks, so users know what they are potentially in for.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Junta ( 36770 )

            The point is that for Android and PC, if they don't want to give 30% of all their money to the vendor of the OS, they don't have to.

            For Apple, they must give 30% of their money to the OS vendor to be available to users of the OS. If Microsoft did this to desktop applications, they would be absolutely thrashed by regulators.

      • I think the EU will find that consumers do benefit from Apple's contract

        They don't, though.

        Android users can enjoy all the same benefits of having a curated app store (both stores have delivered malware, so in neither case is one of the benefits security) without having to deal with vendor lock-in. If Android users don't enable installation from untrusted sources, then they have the same protection against apps delivered from other sources as Apple, which is to say solid but meaningless. It's like expecting a half-door to keep people out of your house.

    • It may sound funny but the case of EPIC is pretty solid. But filing a complaint is just the very first step.

      Any competitor could file a complaint at the antitrust authority based on Article 101 or 102. It does not cost you anything.

      Even anonymous facts could be submitted:
      https://ec.europa.eu/competiti... [europa.eu]

  • Correct complaint, wrong complainant (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mseeger ( 40923 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @05:20AM (#61071332)

    While I see a lot to complain about with Apple, but Epic is the wrong complainant. I understand why Epic is not interested in paying Apple their share, but in the case of Epic IMHO Apple has the right to do so.

    Also in the case of Facebook is IMHO correct in enforcing certain rules.

    There are much better cases against Apple (e.g. their handling of Gaming Streaming apps). In that case Apple is really stiffing competition.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      There are much better cases against Apple (e.g. their handling of Gaming Streaming apps). In that case Apple is really stiffing competition.

      Is it?

      I mean, lets say you want to buy smurfberries. So you buy it in the app with Apple. But then you log into your streaming site and they're not there anymore? You call Apple and they refund you. You buy them on the streaming game site and then you find out they aren't in the app. You call Apple and they said they've refunded you, so you don't have them anymore. You

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mseeger ( 40923 )

        If Apple would grant gaming streaming the same way it grants video streaming, there would be no problem.

        And it is all about money, nothing else.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Kartu ( 1490911 )

      I will be shocked if FB doesn't win the case against Apple specifically in Europe.
      "oh, it's my device, so I could give my own apps an edge over yours" won't fly well in EU, not in case of a company that dominant in the market.
      Apple has been fined numerous times before [nytimes.com].

      Epic is more nuanced, especially in Google's case, when alternative stores exist, but it is much stronger in the case of Apple.

      • Re:Correct complaint, wrong complainant (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mseeger ( 40923 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @08:07AM (#61071578)

        No chance for FB in front of any EU court, less than the one of a snowflake in hell.

        The change of Apple is 100% covered by the EU GDPR directive.

      • Re:Correct complaint, wrong complainant (Score:4, Informative)

        by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @09:12AM (#61071728)
        Epic's case would be more nuanced if it did not have "unclean hands" as the US judge already pointed out in the preliminary ruling. Epic themselves practices exclusivity but with specific titles against competing stores, ie Steam. Apple's stance has been everyone has to follow the same rules and profit share. Also Epic has to overcome the problem that they did not sue Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), or Nintendo who are more restrictive.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          This is why it should be fixed at the legislative or competition regulator level, no through lawsuits. There should be a blanket rule on exclusivity deals that works both ways, no blocking other app stores and no blocking publishers from other platforms.

          • The problem is that few legislative bodies would impose rules on what a hardware can do about what software they will allow. Sharp must allow 3rd party software on their microwaves for example. Ford must allow 3rd parties to program their cars. Epic's exclusivity was imposed by them alone.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Sharp doesn't go out of their way to stop you modifying the software on your microwave though.

              If Apple just didn't support apps then okay, but they have a vast ecosystem of apps. They created a large marketplace and control it with an iron grip. That kind of anti-competitive practice isn't normally acceptable, unless there is a really good technical reason. The existence of Android proves that there isn't such a reason.

              • Sharp and Ford could go after software modification; they chose not to do so against consumers. If Best Buy modified Sharp software I would you money a cease and desist order followed by a lawsuit would quickly be issued. The case of Sharp and Ford is in Apple's favor as they do not allow any 3rd party software. Apple allows 3rd party under conditions.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Modifying a Sharp microwave is only an issue if they then sell it as a Sharp product. Not an issue for apps.

    • On the contrary this is the perfect case in my view. I'm really interested in it. I want to know where the law stands here.

      Can a company just do whatever it wants in its terms of service?
      Yes, Apple says what it says in it's terms of service to developers and the app store.

      But are those terms of service legal? Are they abuse of monopoly practices?

      Epic makes use of the AppStore to distribute their application and pays whatever fees and compliance to make use of the AppStore. That sounds fine to me.

      Yet, then t

      • This analogy is nearly right, but not quite. Apple didnâ(TM)t just build the railroads. It built the customersâ(TM) terminals and rail freight handling equipment too. And Epic can and does ship to the same customers by other means (road = other devices), but wants to use the Apple terminals and equipment as well as the railroads, all for free. And it wants lots of data about the customers too, even though Apple won their business by promising it wouldnâ(TM)t allow shippers access to customer

      • Part of Apple's railroad terms of service is that if you use their railroads, you can't use any other shipping service.

        Good analogy, since exclusive logistics terms are not illegal and widely employed when doing business with larger companies. Ever wonder why that last thing you ordered from a big mega corp was delivered by a single option from FedEx despite many cheaper options or services being available?

        Your railroad analogy (and my logistics one) though falls flat. Apple isn't providing generic transit between a provider and a 3rd party customer. They are providing access to a completely captive market on a completely c

  • At least in the EU they have a change at making things better for people. In America things only get better for corporations.

    • Corporations are people too.

    • Better for which people, and better in what way? Be specific. We can look at other places where Epic is making things "better" in the Epic Game Store fight with Steam.

      What does Epic with it's 12% fee offer customers:
      Cyberpunk 2077 at 59.99EUR
      Borderlands 3 at 59.99EUR
      Control Ultimate Edition at 39.99EUR
      All powered by a launcher with cloud saves.

      What does Steam with it's 30% fee offer customers:
      Cyberpunk 2077 at 59.99EUR
      Borderlands 3 at 59.99EUR
      Control Ultimate Edition at 39.99EUR
      All powered by a launcher wit

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close